Optimizing participation of different groups in science, technology, education, and mathemat- ics (STEM) fields requires a better understand- ing of how any disparities arise. With regard to gender disparities, several aspects have been analyzed—from looking at degrees awarded in STEM fields to career progression to grant sup-port. Scholarly publishing is not immune to gender im-balance in authorship. We sought to learn how Science isdoing on this front.

I previously served on the
U. S. National Research Council Committee on Women in
Science, Engineering, and
Medicine (CWSEM), whose
mandate is to support the
participation of women in
these fields. One valuable
resource assembled by the
CWSEM is a compilation
of data sources relevant
to women in science and
engineering (http://sites.

nationalacademies.org/PGA/cwsem/PGA_049131).

For example, one can examine statistics from the
U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) and find that
the percentage of women
employed in all sectors as a
“biological or life scientist”
was 41.0% in 2003 and 46.9% in 2011, whereas those employed as “engineer” was 10.4% and 11.7%, respectively.

What does the profile of women authors look like atScience To start, we were interested in the percentagesof women among authors of papers published in Sci-ence compared to papers that were submitted to Sciencebut not published. We examined papers published in

Science in 2015 and a randomly selected set of manuscripts that had been submitted but not accepted for
publication. The individuals in the first author and last
author positions were analyzed for gender and career
stage through Internet searches; gender was inferred
from photos, text references, and names. Junior positions were defined as first authors who were graduate students or postdoctoral fellows, whereas senior
positions were defined as first or last authors who
were in faculty or analogous positions. This evaluation revealed that for published papers, 17% of 862

senior author positions and 25% of 471 junior authorpositions were held by women; for the unpublished pa-pers, the numbers were 15% and 30%, respectively. Thisanalysis is described in more detail at Sciencehound( http://blogs.sciencemag.org/sciencehound/2017/01/19/gender-analysis-of-science-authors/).

To place these values in context, we examined the percentages of women in scientific fields, weighted to match
the balance of fields covered by the NSF through the use
of NSF data. We estimated that women held 33% of all
academic positions regardless of rank in 2010, 27%

of senior faculty positionsin 2010, and 47% of gradu-ate programs positions in

2011. Comparison of these
results with the percentages
of women Science authors
reveals that the percentages
of women in both the senior
and junior author groups are
lower among Science authors
and submitters by approximately one-third.

The percentages of
women authors in published
papers are not substantially
different from those from
the group of papers that
were not accepted, with a
slightly higher percentage
of women in senior positions for published papers
and a somewhat lower percentage of women in junior
positions for published papers. These differences are not
statistically significant given the sample sizes. This suggests that review processes and editorial decisions are
not introducing substantial gender disparities.

Many other dimensions from the Science author data,
such as trends over time, could be analyzed. However,
a major limitation is the availability of data regarding
the gender of authors. Within the year, we aim to collect
gender and other demographic information from our authors and reviewers for the purpose of facilitating such
analyses. Such data will be stored separately from other
information and used only for aggregate analyses and
not for other processes related to editorial decision-making. I hope that authors and reviewers will share this information with us so that we can understand imbalances
and react appropriately to address any issues related to
STEM diversity and equity.